2nd Amendment: Keep and Bear Arms
The 2nd Amendment does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment does not protect you against the government from taking away your guns. Your rights are given to you by God, and protecting your rights is your responsibility. Like anything else you own, if you give away your rights, or allow someone to take them, they may still belong to you as an unalienable, God-given right, but you have given up all access to them, and can no longer exercise those rights.

In the Washington, D.C. v. Heller case in 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the right to bear arms is an individual right, as opposed to a collective right which would only allow the bearing of arms for the purpose of participating in government approved groups, such as law enforcement agencies.

During the early years of the United States under the United States Constitution, the Anti-Federalists feared the creation of a central government because they feared the federal government would become tyrannical, and take away people’s rights. Therefore, even though the Constitution in the first seven articles did not grant to the federal government any authority over gun rights, along with the rest of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, those skeptical over the creation of a central government wanted an amendment that clarified the federal government had no authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

The States have Original Authority, meaning that all powers belonged to the States prior to the writing of the Constitution. The first seven articles of the document did not give to the federal government the authority to regulate firearms, therefore, any legislative power over gun rights is a State power. The 2nd Amendment simply confirms that. The argument then becomes about the potential tyranny of the States. If the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States, what keeps the States from infringing on gun rights?
The State constitutions, and the people, hold the responsibility of restraining the States from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. The Founding Fathers were not concerned with a tyranny of the States because the State governments are closer to the people, and therefore the people have fewer legal and political obstacles when acting to ensure the State governments do not infringe on individual rights.

Complacency, then, becomes our greatest enemy.

With freedom comes responsibility.

Understanding that the Framers expected their posterity to be informed problem-solvers, while recognizing that basic human nature would invite complacency and the rise of a tyrannical government, it becomes clear why the Founding Fathers put so much importance on gun rights.

In early American society the need to be armed was necessary for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to, protecting one’s property, facilitating a natural right of self-defense, participating in law enforcement, enabling people to participate in an organized militia system, deterring a tyrannical government, repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, and hunting.

The right to keep and bear arms is not merely about protecting your home, or hunting, though those are important, too. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect us against all enemies, foreign and domestic, which could include a potentially oppressive central government.

Noah Webster in his “An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” in 1787 articulated the necessity for keeping and bearing arms clearly: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”

Some will argue the 2nd Amendment does not apply to our current society because the militia is a thing of the past.

The National Guard now serves as the organized militia envisioned by the Founding Fathers, but an unorganized militia also exists.

Title 10 of the United States Code provides for both “organized” and “unorganized” civilian militias. While the organized militia is made up of members of the National Guard and Naval Militia, the unorganized militia is composed entirely of private individuals.

United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces, Subtitle A – General Military Law
Chapter 13 – The Militia:

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are –

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Other than age, health, gender, or citizenship, there are no additional provisions for exemption from membership in the unorganized militia. While it is doubtful that it will ever be called to duty, the United States civilian militia does legally exist. The Founding Fathers would have likely included in the definition of unorganized militia, “All able-bodied citizens capable of fighting.”

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) challenged the City of Chicago’s ban on hand guns, bringing to the surface the debate over whether or not the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government.

The 5-4 Decision of the McDonald v. City of Chicago case by the U.S. Supreme Court holds the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms in all cities and States. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that originally the 2nd Amendment applied only to the federal government, but it is in the opinion of the court that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights, therefore applying those amendments, and more specifically the 2nd Amendment, to the States.

The decision by the Supreme Court, in this case, makes all State laws on fire arms null and void. Applying the 2nd Amendment to the States means the 2nd Amendment is supreme over any and all State laws on firearms, and according to the 2nd Amendment, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” If “shall not be infringed” applies to both the federal government and the States governments, then all persons are allowed to possess a firearm. The words, “shall not be infringed” carries no exceptions.

The reason the 2nd Amendment is absolute in its language is because it was intended to only apply to the federal government. The federal government shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms in any way, but the States retain the authority to regulate guns as necessary based on the needs and allowances of the local electorate.

The U.S. Constitution applies to the federal government except where specifically noted otherwise.

In reference to McDonald v. Chicago, I am uneasy anytime the federal government tells a city or state what they have to do, even if on the surface it is for a good cause.

If we give the federal government the right to tell cities they have to allow gun ownership, what stops them from doing the opposite later? This case created a precedent of allowing the federal government to dictate to the States and cities what they have to do, and that kind of federal intrusion constitutes great danger to State Sovereignty.

Breaking down the language used in the 2nd Amendment assists in clarifying what the original intent was.

The 2nd Amendment begins, “A well regulated Militia.” The immediate understanding of that phrase by the average American in today’s culture recognizes it as meaning, “A militia under the control of the government,” or “regulated by government agencies,” or “managed by federal law.”

All of the above definitions are wrong.

As discussed regarding the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8, the word “regulated” does not mean “controlled or restricted by government.” The definition used by the Framers, and the one that fits best with the context of the period, and the principles of the Constitution, can be found in the 1828 Webster Dictionary. Webster defined regulated as: “To put in good order.” Some historians state that the word “regulate” in the 18th Century meant “To make regular.” The word “restrict” was not used in the 1828 definition until the third and final definition of “regulated,” revealing that today’s most common definition was the “least used” definition during the time of the writing of the United States Constitution.

Since “regulate” did not mean “to control and restrict,” but instead meant “to put in good order,” that means a well regulated militia is one that is in good order.

The need to have a militia in good order makes sense when one considers that during the Revolutionary War the militia was not in good order. The muskets were all different sizes, often the clothing of some members of the militia was tattered, and many didn’t even have shoes.

To put the militia in good order, Congress was required to create standards for the militia to follow. The authority to Congress regarding this power is revealed in Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, where the Constitution says, “The Congress shall have Power. . . To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

The next part of the 2nd Amendment reveals that a well regulated militia is “necessary to the security of a free State.”

The word State, in that instance, means “individual, autonomous, sovereign State.” In other words, a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free Massachusetts, a free Pennsylvania, a free Virginia, a free New York, a free Ohio, a free California, and so on.

“Necessary to the security of a free State.” A militia is necessary, not just recommended, to the security of a free State. Security against whom? A foreign invader? Isn’t that what the standing army was supposed to be for? Why would States need militias, capable of being called up by the governor of the State, for their “security,” and to ensure that security is for them to remain a “free State?”

Foreign enemies were a concern, but not as much of a concern as a tyrannical central government. Thomas Jefferson so distrusted a central government that he suggested there would be a bloody revolution every twenty years.

“… can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independant 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” — Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787

The Declaration of Independence also states that the people have the right to stand up against their government should it become tyrannical. In the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence it reads:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The right to alter or abolish a tyrannical government walks hand in hand with the right to keep and bear arms. How could it ever be logical that the right to keep and bear arms could ever be influenced or restricted by the very government that that right exists to protect the people against in the first place?

Terms:
Arms – Weapons, firearms; a gun that may be used for protection of property or as part of a militia.

Collective Right – Rights held by a group, rather than its members separately.

Declaration of Independence – The unanimous formal Declaration of the thirteen united States of America declaring their freedom from Great Britain, dated July 4, 1776.

Individual Right – Rights held by individuals within a particular group.

Organized Militia – A well trained militia that is in good order that operates under the authority of Congress, able to be called into actual service by the executive authority of a State, or by the Congress of the United States; National Guard, Naval Militia, State Militias.

Original Authority – Principal agent holding legal authority; initial power to make or enforce laws; the root authority in government.

Regulated – To make regular; to put in good order.

State Sovereignty – The individual autonomy of the several states; strong local government was considered the key to freedom; a limited government is the essence of liberty.

Unorganized Militia – Able-bodied citizens of the United States, or those who have made a declaration of intention to become citizens of the United States, who are members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Questions for Discussion:

1. In your opinion, what are the most important reasons for the right to bear arms?

2. If the courts, or the federal government, were to redefine gun rights as being a collective right, how would that affect our individual right to keep and bear arms?

3. Is a militia necessary in today’s society? Why?

4. Why did the Founding Fathers see it as necessary to prohibit the federal government from any authority to prohibit the right to keep and bear arms, but felt it necessary to allow the States full authority over gun regulations?

5. In McDonald v. Chicago the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to cities and States. How does that open up the opportunity for the federal government to further regulate firearms?
Resources:

The Senate hammered proposed gun control laws, and Democrats simply cannot figure out that disarming Americans in the face of extreme danger isn’t the correct thing to do.

Listening to the news, and reading social media brings something to mind. Specifically, a bumper sticker that we got into trouble for placing on the ceiling of the ambulance. “Are you stoned, or just stupid?” Let’s go through the proposals.

On Terrorists: Who gets to choose who is a “terrorist?” Would that be the very same people that called many non leftest WordPress Bloggers “terrorists?” Along with others that simply disagree with these elitists..?

Background test expansion: Anyone with a brain knows that background tests simply do not work. They never have, and never will. A black market is already thriving in this nation for weapons that the average person does not, or can’t get access too. This simple fact of life also blows away the RINO proposal of a waiting period that allows a challenge for denial of a purchase.

Implementing even more restrictions on the rights and liberties of Americans will be met with the same success that our fabulous victory that The War on Drugs has racked up.

On that note? Have those that desire Americans to be helpless in the face of grave danger simply stoned from inhaling Unicorn Farts, or are they in fact guilty of treason? Or both..?

Like this:

The current occupier of the White House actually admitted that there was, in fact, a terrorist attack on American soil. Honestly, I did not believe that he had the intestinal fortitude to admit it. Better late than never some might say. I am not one of those people…

The obama, simply got caught between two of his biggest supporting groups. Not wanting to end up like Mussolini he chose to support the gay movement over his spiritual brethren.

Kasich and Soros share two important traits: (1) their desire to mess up the Republican selection process for devious motives, and (2) their absolute hatred for the Second Amendment.

Kasich’s antipathy towards gun rights is no secret to anyone who’s watched his career. Make no mistake about it: When we are winning by a large margin — when we don’t need John Kasich’s vote — he’s usually there to give us a big, wet “Don Corleone kiss.”

But when the vote is close and the future of the Second Amendment is at stake, “Godfather John” usually leaves us a severed horsehead in our bed.

(1) Provisions making it virtually impossible to legally teach kids how to use firearms;

(2) A gun show ban (masquerading as a gun show Instant Check); and

(3) Mandates to require you to “lock up your guns.”

Had Clinton been successful in passing his post-Columbine anti-gun agenda, it would have provided a legislative platform which could easily have eviscerated the Second Amendment over the last decade-and-a-half.

But Kasich’s efforts to outlaw guns — drip-by-drip — continues to this day.

Kasich continues to be a chief advocate of actual or de facto amnesty, claiming that enforcing our immigration laws would be “inhumane.”

Of course, if Kasich gets his way, the legalization of 11 million illegals will have the same effect on the American electorate that the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty had on California. The country as a whole would become deep “anti-gun blue.”

Now, all it will take is for Obama to do a computer search of Kasich’s Medicaid beneficiaries for “PTSD,” “Alzheimer’s,” and other “mental defectives,” and the gun rights of tens of thousands of law-abiding Ohioans could be jeopardized.

And all of this was done by Kasich’s particularly nasty form of politics which he is now trying to morph, incredibly, into his “Mr. Nice” act.

These actions, of course, reflect the hatred for guns by Kasich’s patron, George Soros.

You may remember that, when Soros launched his campaign of “exposes” designed to destroy the conservative movement piece-by-piece, his first target was Gun Owners of America — which Soros viewed as even more dangerous than the Koch brothers.

But perhaps as bad as Kasich’s anti-gun record is his determination to destroy the GOP selection process for personal gain.

Surely, even the vainglorious Kasich understands that, the longer he stays is the race, the longer the “divided field” makes it easier for an establishment candidate to hijack the process at the convention.

Polls have shown — here and here — that Ted Cruz would beat Donald Trump in a head-to-head matchup.

But by becoming the REAL “chaos candidate,” Kasich helps destroy the Republican Party by throwing the nomination to someone who is despised by the grassroots. In so doing, Kasich does the bidding of his master, George Soros.

Ted Cruz would be the natural one to aggressively call out anti-gunner John Kasich for his anti-gun record.

Please contact Ted Cruz and urge him to expose Kasich. Let’s not let Kasich pull the wool over the eyes of American voters.

So simply copy-n-paste the pre-written letter below into Senator Ted Cruz’ webform and urge him to expose Senator John Kasich’s anti-gun record.

—– Pre-written letter for Sen. Ted Cruz —–

Dear Senator Cruz:

Thank you so much for your strong defense of the Constitution — and in particular, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Gun Owners of America has informed me that John Kasich has a long record of supporting gun control, including the following:

1) Kasich cast the deciding vote to impose a ban on semi-auto firearms, and for this, he received a personal letter of thanks from a gun-hating Bill Clinton. See: tinyurl.com/hp4ucsp

2) Kasich voted for background checks in 1993, a system which is now blocking a percentage of legal gun purchases. Loretta Lynch’s Justice Department has, since November, shifted FBI employees to insure that, if someone is illegally blocked by NICS from purchasing a firearm, they can never get their record corrected. See: tinyurl.com/hp4ucsp

4) Also in 1999, he voted for provisions making it virtually impossible to legally teach kids how to use firearms; for a gun show ban (masquerading as a gun show Instant Check); and for mandates to requiring people to “lock up their guns.” See: tinyurl.com/jq84rcd

With John Kasich deciding to remain in the presidential race, I think it’s important for someone on the national level to expose his anti-gun votes.

Alright, it’s all starting again. So to speak… The anti liberty and freedom forces are back at it again as usual. Well, here is the best summation that I have found anywhere when it comes to understanding the debate about destroying your right to be able to properly and effectively defending yourself as well as others…

The president conducted another dog-and-pony show last week during a CNN-sponsored “Town Hall.”

The president trotted out several worn-out lies, like his claim that guns are more likely to kill you than save your life.

He even had the audacity to say that background checks are necessary since we wouldn’t otherwise know if drug dealers were buying guns.

Really?!? Has the president already forgotten Fast & Furious — when his administration gave green lights to known criminals so they could purchase firearms and smuggle them south of the border?

Of course he didn’t forget, but this president doesn’t care about facts or statistics that don’t support his ambitious gun control agenda.

The United States is experiencing record low crime rates, but Obama continues to pursue his anti-gun agenda in spite of the fact that murder rates are at their lowest levels in 25 years.

Nevertheless, Obama tried to make his radical agenda sound like it’s simply a few tweaks here and there — ignoring, of course, that his oath to uphold the Constitution should prevent him from imposing any “infringements” on gun rights at all.

GOA on the Front Lines

Though the President’s media circus last Thursday night was tightly controlled by the White House, GOA spokesmen have appeared on more than a thousand media outlets to discuss the President’s agenda.

You can view a few of them here:

* Larry Pratt Debunking the “Gun Show Loophole” on Fox Business News;

* A “tense” debate with a CNN host who attempted to keep me from debunking the anti-gun liberals’ talking points.

* Plus many more radio and TV appearances where GOA spokesmen have recently taken on Obama’s gun control proposals — all viewable at GOA’s YouTube page here.

Tomorrow (Jan 6) in Cody WY the school board is having what they call a ‘special meeting’ that includes both school board members and state legislators about…guns in schools.

This meeting is so ‘special’ – that they decided the meeting shouldn’t be advertised to the public.

The truth is, they don’t want you to know!

You see, Park county’s anti-gun school superintendent Ray Schulte is working hard to ensure law abiding Citizens like YOU are NEVER allowed to exercise the God-given right to self defense.

And just what is Schulte pushing?

He is in support of legislation strikingly similar to Senator Hank Coe’s substitute bill that effectively derailed the repeal of gun free zones in Wyoming.

And this isn’t the first time superintendent Schulte has been on the wrong side of your right to keep and bear arms. The more that you see him in action, the more you realize he is aligned with Joe Biden, the author of gun free zone legislation.

Here’s the low down…

Schulte in his capacity as superintendent of schools in Torrington Wy —-> testified against repealing gun free zones in a Wyoming Senate committee in 2012.

It was at this moment we discovered that superintendent Schulte doesn’t even trust the citizens who submit to a full background check.

Schulte stated in open committee, “I spoke with our police chief and he told me there over two thousand permit holders right here in out district, can you imagine all of them being in the school at the same time?”

It was shortly after, that the Goshen School board had enough of Schulte…

In June of 2012 the school board voted against Schulte and one board member even stated publicly that, “the superintendent wasn’t doing a good job” and “his salary was too high.”

The Torrington headline actually read, “District Superintendent Ray Schulte does not have the full support of the Goshen County School Board.”

Sadly by the following year, the folks in Cody took him in as their new school superintendent, at an even higher salary of $150,000 a year.

It should be noted that instead of inviting the public to a meeting where the only agenda is about guns, Schulte invited several neighboring district board members – Now you know why it’s called a “special meeting.”

Please contact the following Park county school board members and let them know you are on to their scheme.

Jake Fulkerson
Chairman
jakefulkerson@park6.org
Term Ends: 2016

Julie Snelson
Vice Chairman
juliesnelson@park6.org
Term Ends: 2016

Stefanie Bell
Treasurer
stefaniebell@park6.org
Term Ends: 2016

Kelly Simone
kellysimone@park6.org
Term Ends: 2018

Ed Seymour
edseymour@park6.org
Term Ends: 2016

I have confirmed that the Grizzly Room at the Cody Library is reserved from 6-9pm on Jan 6. I have also confirmed that public comments will not be allowed. If you can be there please do so with a recording device and camera in hand.

In order for WyGO to continue opposing the likes of Superintendent Schulte and Senator Hank Coe, I need your help. Please consider a donation of $100, $50 or just $25 today.

The Left Calls for Confiscating Your Guns in Wake of California Shooting

ACTION: The anti-gun Left is pulling out the stops and is now calling for gun confiscation. We have to meet “fire with fire.” So forward this alert to ten people. Encourage your pro-gun family and friends to sign up for GOA alerts.

And, you can also give Gift Memberships to your family/friends this holiday season. We need your support and activism more than ever!

The Anti-gun Left Declares War on Your Gun Rights

President Obama took to the airwaves on Sunday night and told the nation we need more gun control.

Hillary Clinton — the one who will most likely be the Democrat nominee for president in 2016 — recently called for an all-out war on guns, as well.

And then, for the first time since 1920, the New York Times published an editorial on the front page of their newspaper.

This is important because the editorial page of the Times reflects the thinking of the anti-gun Democrat Left.

And what is the theme of the Times‘ most important message in nearly a hundred years?

In two words: Gun Confiscation.

The Left “drops the gloves,” calls for gun confiscation

The New York Times said this weekend that:

It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

The Times continues that there would be no grandfather clause for the 300,000,000-plus firearms we currently own:

[I]t would require Americans who own these kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

So there you have it. You need to give up your guns — for the good of the country.

Ironically, the editors at The Washington Post are furious with the Times for letting the “cat out of the bag.”

They called the Times’ editorial “predictably polarizing.”

But as one insightful journalist noted, the Post editors are only upset because the Times’ piece confirms “every gun owner’s worst fear — namely, that all the talk about gun safety and reducing gun violence is just a sham, and the real agenda of the gun control movement is total confiscation.”

Gun confiscation has always been the goal of the anti-gun Left

Everyone has known that a Hillary presidency would result in greater restrictions on our Second Amendment rights.

Or remember when New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) said, in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, that among the different gun control proposals that were being bandied about, “[gun] confiscation could be an option.”